>Then you have the case of a government entity where you cannot even
start >the process for a new fiscal year until after the first day of
the new >fiscal year. If the product license expires on the fiscal year
boundary, >the chance of getting the entire renewal process completed in
30 (or 40) >da
is very slim.
David Mueller | Systems Programmer
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Cole
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:20 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are
--
Perhaps the problems with keys need to be made painful to a sales person
from a problem vendor? If they don't get they point, I'm sure that there
are a few enterprising souls that will do the job, and possibly at a
lower cost with much more responsiven
ASCII. ---Christophe
Pierret [for Alain LaBonté]
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman
> Sent: Sunday 25 February 2007 19:46
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: License keys for
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:54 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives
> are there?)
&
As for the ad hominem attack about 'willfully ignorant',
that I'm NOT.
I'm willfully ticked off!
I hear all these great schemes that vendors have to manage keys.
I'd like to actually see one in action; none of ours do that.
As for the stories of large customers that deliberately duck payments; I'v
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:04 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alterna
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 7:58 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives
> are there?)
>
>
>Do not vendors supply a means for customers to get an unrestricted full-use
>temporary key (expires within a week - or less?) to handle the DR bumps in the
>road?
Not all.
Not enough!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
>Then don't blame all ISV's because of some renegade ISV's
I find it the other way around!
The renegades are the ones that make it easy to use.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
At 2/26/2007 03:09 AM, BDissen wrote:
:>Really? Explain how one tests a dynamic CPU upgrade consisting of IBM
:>non-disruptively turning on one or more CP's on your only production
:>processor complex. At least 75% of our upgrades are now of this nature.
That causes a change in the CPU id?
Live
Ted, Why are you being willfully ignorant? I have already posted my
own personal stories of dealing with one large customer (a major
government entity, in fact) who willfully violated their license by
running my product on more CPUs than permitted.
I have already explained realistic scenarios
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:50:04 -0600 "Joel C. Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Binyamin Dissen wrote:
:>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:25:24 -0600 "Joel C. Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
:>> :>Particularly in the case of processor upgrades, or in DR, there is no
:>> :>reliable way for us to veri
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:46:08 -0600 Rick Fochtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>---
:>I worked at a small financial services company where the sysprog
:>disabled the SYNCSORT key code.
:>It eventually came back to bite him and he was asked to leave.
:>--
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Cole
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are there?)
At 2/25/2007 01:15 PM, TMacNeil wrote:
>&
---
I worked at a small financial services company where the sysprog
disabled the SYNCSORT key code.
It eventually came back to bite him and he was asked to leave.
-
Rightly so. But don't blame the company f
to 7-bit ASCII. ---Christophe
Pierret [for Alain LaBonté]
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lloyd Fuller
> Sent: Sunday 25 February 2007 17:02
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: License key
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:32:18 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
>>If it were not for keys, some customers wouldn't pay on time (or wouldn't pay
>>at all).
>
>THAT is my point of disagreement!
>
>Most shops that are mainframe shops are large companies.
>Large companies do NOT want their names in the press.
>Why would anyone buy a product that has 9-5 service and keys to make it work?
Because it's the only one that does what you need?
>I would think just a tiny amount of investigation would uncover that fact.
Because it's the only one that does what you need?
>Of course, if the product is sold t
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:25:24 -0600 "Joel C. Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Particularly in the case of processor upgrades, or in DR, there is no
:>reliable way for us to verify that new keys from the vendors are correct
:>and correctly installed until we are running
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Lands End
Dodgeville, Wisconsin
414-475-7434
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Fochtman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: License keys for ISV produ
rday, February 24, 2007 11:14 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives
> are there?)
>
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:25:24 -0600 "Joel C. Ewing"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :>Particularly in the case of
>If it were not for keys, some customers wouldn't pay on time (or wouldn't pay
>at all).
THAT is my point of disagreement!
Most shops that are mainframe shops are large companies.
Large companies do NOT want their names in the press.
Ergo, they will do everything they can to pay on time.
Yes, we
>Don't you mean "that's my main objection to the way a particular vendor
has
implemented his keys"?
Many more than one vendor!
Okay, lot's of vendors have bad keys. Lot's of restaurants are unhygienic.
This doesn't mean all restaurants are unhygienic.
If it were not for keys, some customers
>Even to support installing the product off hours?
>If so, I am quite amazed.
The product was/is key to our environment, but only cost $5K/annum.
Not worth the vendor's time/$.
There are few alternatives, and if they lose us, it's not like they lose a
large revenue stream.
We have since switche
>Don't you mean "that's my main objection to the way a particular vendor has
implemented his keys"?
Many more than one vendor!
>I understand that your experience with keys has been less than ideal. But,
>there are vendors out there who design keys so that:
Only two (soon to be three), so far.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Dave Salt
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 10:47 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are there?)
>
> &g
>Not every vendor is guilty of the problems you
continually allege.
I'm not the only one that 'continually' alleges.
And, if there are vendors with better practices, I have only met two. I may not
have travelled as many miles as some of you, but key management for the
mainframe is the second w
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:09:27 + Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>>I would find it hard to believe that the unnamed vendor with 9-5 support
would have strongly objected for a "one of" weekend support.
:>ITYM "one off".
:>Objected, no.
:>Refused, yes!
Even to support installing the pr
On Feb 25, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Rick Fochtman wrote:
I would find it hard to believe that the unnamed vendor with 9-5
support would have strongly objected for a "one of" weekend support.
-
You'd be amaz
>If the product is designed properly, you should be able to specify more
than one key.
Woulda! Coulda! Shoulda!
It wasn't!
That's my main objections to keys!
Don't you mean "that's my main objection to the way a particular vendor has
implemented his keys"?
I understand that your experience w
At 2/25/2007 01:15 PM, TMacNeil wrote:
Why? If the product is designed properly, you should be able to
specify more than one key.
Woulda! Coulda! Shoulda!
It wasn't!
That's my main objections to keys!
Your objection is misplaced, Ted. It should not be against keys. It
should be against badl
>Why? If the product is designed properly, you should be able to specify more
than one key.
Woulda! Coulda! Shoulda!
It wasn't!
That's my main objections to keys!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe
>I would find it hard to believe that the unnamed vendor with 9-5 support would
>have strongly objected for a "one of" weekend support.
ITYM "one off".
Objected, no.
Refused, yes!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For I
From: Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1. Vendor delivers key.
2. Key cannot be installed until the upgrade.
Why? If the product is designed properly, you should be able to specify more
than one key. If the first key fails, the product tests the second key (and
so on) until a working key is fou
I would find it hard to believe that the unnamed vendor with 9-5 support
would have strongly objected for a "one of" weekend support.
-
You'd be amazed at the number of vendors that will NOT provide supp
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:57:34 + Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>>Would be great if all invoices were paid on time.
:>Would be great if vendors delivered working keys all the time!
Yes
:>Would be great if vendors were available 7-24!
Yes.
:>Neither of the two above have anything to
>Would be great if all invoices were paid on time.
Would be great if vendors delivered working keys all the time!
Would be great if vendors were available 7-24!
Neither of the two above have anything to do with timely payments.
AND, the scenario I proposed, I lived through.
Without naming names,
Looks like introducing knowingly a single point of failure into a system
without any way out .
This was my point earlier on
I was caught 3 years ago despite warning the vendor of the differences in
STSI and STIDP on z/990 but indeed they ignored me and no batch would run
i had to call someone in T
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:20:29 +1000 Shane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>> Am I a little harsh? Perhaps.
:>Sounds suspiciously like platitude to me.
No.
:>Being patronising to customers with broken systems is rarely
:>appreciated.
Nobody is suggesting that.
:> Vendors with visions
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:02:40 + Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>>In the case of a processor upgrade: if you get a hard error during
production due to a bad ISV key, your testing criteria are way too lax.
:>Scenario:
:>1. Vendor delivers key.
:>2. Key cannot be installed until the upg
> Am I a little harsh? Perhaps.
Sounds suspiciously like platitude to me.
Being patronising to customers with broken systems is rarely
appreciated. Vendors with visions of forward sales would do well to be
cognisant of this.
Shane ...
>In the case of a processor upgrade: if you get a hard error during production
>due to a bad ISV key, your testing criteria are way too lax.
Scenario:
1. Vendor delivers key.
2. Key cannot be installed until the upgrade.
3. Upgrade cannot be done until the weekend.
4. Key fails.
5. Vendor support
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:25:24 -0600 "Joel C. Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Particularly in the case of processor upgrades, or in DR, there is no
:>reliable way for us to verify that new keys from the vendors are correct
:>and correctly installed until we are running on the new processor. I
Since probably the most important function of a System Programmer is to
provide a stable Operating System platform for production applications
(typically requiring a number of ISV products), and to do this while
juggling software release changes, software maintenance, and changes in
hardware, i
: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are there?)
Russell,
It is already as you think it should be. I've been downloading my LMP
keys from SupportConnect and its predecessors for a Long Time--the file
is indeed keyed off site-id.
At the risk of starting a whole new discussion, let me propose a
possible mechanism that MIGHT be acceptable to most, if not all, vendors.
1. IBM provides a mechanism to fetch a single entry from IFAPRDxx, based
on a product identifier, E.G. "SYNCSORT VxRx.x". The entry would include
a USERDAT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/19/2007
at 09:35 AM, Mark Zelden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>License keys are a fact of life just like spam. Get over it.
You could say the same thing about arson, battery, counterfeiting, DOS
attacks, etc. I don't consider it to be a healthy attitude.
Improvement
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/19/2007
at 08:52 AM, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>But the distribution list for such warnings might ideally include
>Accounts Payable personnel who can't even spell "TSO".
The messages from others suggest that what is needed is a message to
someone to
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/19/2007
at 12:40 PM, Tony Harminc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>My experience some years ago with a vendor well known to this list
>was that our A-P department took the view that a "net 30" contract
>meant they should pay 30 days after receipt of the invoice, and not
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Bruce Black
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:14 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are there?
>
> >
"Net 30" is sometimes specified in the license.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Bruce Black
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: License keys for ISV pro
Possibly the only way to bring these A-P departments into line is to
have a notice in the invoice that says failure to pay promptly means
that the product will stop working.
Then the invoice should specify immediate payment, not "net 30" or
whatever.
--
Bruce A. Black
Senior Software Develop
My experience some years ago with a vendor well known to this list was that
our A-P department took the view that a "net 30" contract meant they should
pay 30 days after receipt of the invoice, and not a day earlier.
I think that is an accurate interpretation. The last time I worked for
a user
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Jon Brock
>
> We added Internet access just last year to our BRS contract
> with IBM; software key access was one of the reasons.
>
> Another reason was that it allowed me to access our home
> system in case I was n
We added Internet access just last year to our BRS contract with IBM; software
key access was one of the reasons.
Another reason was that it allowed me to access our home system in case I was
needed while I was at the BR test. It also gave access to software manuals if
needed. 'Net access is
Receiving Timely Payments
My experience some years ago with a vendor well known to this list
was that our A-P department took the view that a "net 30" contract
meant they should pay 30 days after receipt of the invoice, and not
a day earlier. The vendor took the view that they would send out
SCRT definitely only reports the IBM sub-capacity products for which it is
programmed. No ISV products are reported by SCRT today.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I think what we are hearing is that my earlier suggestion that "maybe the
>problem is your AP department" was not a red herring after all.
Maybe! Maybe not. Our company does NET-30, and our vendors accept that. And, of
the 15 we manage ourselves, rather than through our service provider, only 4
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:48:27 -0400, Clark Morris wrote:
>
> Could you take a laptop with a wireless connection? Failing that, can
> you make the case for having either one PC dedicated to mainframe use
> and the Internet or at least one PC with Internet connection dedicated
> to mainframe. At le
Where do you recover? Every place I know of has PC's for access in
the hot sites.
Doug
snip>
>
>I don't really like email notification. For some reason, it rarely gets
>to me. And I do most of the key related maintenance. Again, CA does the
>best for this because I can get my
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are there?)
I have lived the pain, to the point of
On 19 Feb 2007 09:40:41 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>David Cole wrote:
>
>> RPOs, POs and invoices are all necessary parts of the A-P process,
>> and the better a vendor understands, cooperates with and *assists* in
>> the process, the more often:
>>- The licensing will be ren
See below...
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
Does IBM custom build the IFAPRD** for each customer?
Yes. Every z/OS ServerPac or CBPDO order includes a custom-built
IFAPRDxx member.
Or are most products turned off, requiring the customer to activate those that
were licensed?
So far as I know, on
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:22:08 +0200, Binyamin Dissen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does IBM custom build the IFAPRD** for each customer?
>
>Or are most products turned off, requiring the customer to activate those that
>were licensed?
>
A sample IFAPRDxx comes pre-customized with ServerPac based on
t;> Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives
>> are there?)
>>
>>
>> In a recent note, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" said:
>>
>> > Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:40:13 -0500
>> >
>> > >It might help if
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:33:26 -0500 "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/18/2007
:> at 08:54 AM, "Eric N. Bielefeld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
:>>IFAPRDxx really isn't a key. You have to turn it on for each product
:>>to use it, but there is no
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/18/2007
at 08:54 AM, "Eric N. Bielefeld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>IFAPRDxx really isn't a key. You have to turn it on for each product
>to use it, but there is no key that only works on your CPU. I'm not
>sure just what IBM's reasoning behind IFAPRD is,
Pre
9, 2007 10:53 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are there?
What I'd "love" is to be a hard-a** some day. I almost did it at one
place. They were in financial difficulties so they were always late
paying. Once a "mission c
alf
Of Howard Brazee
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:45 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are there?
On 19 Feb 2007 10:40:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chase, John)
wrote:
>Indeed, that was the "main" reason cited by a form
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 12:47 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives
> are there?
>
In a recent note, Tony Harminc said:
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:40:20 -0500
>
> I think a decoupling of the keys issue and the payments is called for, and
> indeed in the real world this happens much of the time.
>
IOW, the key is renewed whether you pay or not?
Perhaps the A-P policy
On 19 Feb 2007 10:40:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chase, John)
wrote:
>Indeed, that was the "main" reason cited by a former employer for
>refusing to implement "direct deposit" of payroll checks. They budgeted
>the projected interest they would earn during the "float" period between
>us cashing o
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tony Harminc
>
> [ snip ]
>
> Now as an ISV employee, I see many Fortune 500 companies that
> have A-P departments who, as a matter of policy, push the
> limits much further, and more often.
You could probably attr
D] On
Behalf Of Jon Brock
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 9:52 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are there?)
I realize this is heresy, but I like the way CA does it. Parts of it,
anyway. We get warnings before a key expires. Once we get a ne
David Cole wrote:
> RPOs, POs and invoices are all necessary parts of the A-P process,
> and the better a vendor understands, cooperates with and *assists* in
> the process, the more often:
>- The licensing will be renewed on time,
>- Payment will be made on time,
>- And licensing ke
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mark Zelden
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:35 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are
there?)
>
> J
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 9:53 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives
> are there?)
>
In a recent note, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" said:
> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:40:13 -0500
>
> >It might help if the installation process prompted for an E-mail
> >address of contact to notify automatically prior to expiry. Less
> >help on z/OS than on other systems, because z/OS has les
I realize this is heresy, but I like the way CA does it. Parts of it, anyway.
We get warnings before a key expires. Once we get a new key, we add it to our
options file in Common Services (formerly CA-90's, etc.) and rerun CAS9 -- no
pain, no downtime.
I have no problem with vendor implement
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:02:38 -0500, Reda, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We offer multiple ways for the customer to install and maintain their
license keys. The recommended method is having the keys in a sequential
data set. This way modifications to the license keys can be as easy as
updatin
In a message dated 2/19/2007 8:02:36 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That doesn't solve the problem for either the customer or the vendor.
Consider DR.
>>
Seems like if RSA cards are portable between cell phones should be able to
specify a backup decoder ring-wavin
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/17/2007
at 06:52 PM, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>It might help if the installation process prompted for an E-mail
>address of contact to notify automatically prior to expiry. Less
>help on z/OS than on other systems, because z/OS has less consistent
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/17/2007
at 10:40 AM, Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>We jointly discovered that our common distributor had stolen tens of
>thousands of dollars from us
>Was it Ronald Reagan who said "trust, but verify"?
He quoted an old Russian saying.
>Even if a more
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/17/2007
at 07:27 AM, David Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>From a user's perspective, if the ISV is timely in his delivery of
>license keys, why is it a big deal?
That's the wrong question. How can the user *know* that the ISV will
*always* be timely in his deliver
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/17/2007
at 11:41 AM, Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The silver bullet would be a magic decoder ring on the HMC that says
>this can run and this can't.
That doesn't solve the problem for either the customer or the vendor.
Consider DR.
--
Shmuel (Seym
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/17/2007
at 04:18 PM, Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Ted, if you haven't gotten why the trust model is inadequate from my
>past posts, and David Cole's, and Dave Salt's, and Russell Witt's,
>then my explaining it again probably won't do the trick either.
Focussing on the client site administrator aspect, things that
used to annoy me were
- Licence expiration warnings that modified return codes in
production batch jobs
- Licence expiration warnings that went unnoticed
- The variety of expiration warning messages being issued
- The variety of places
Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are there?)
Russell Witt wrote:
One reason you can NOT compare IBM to any ISV is that IBM knows what
hardware you have; how many box's you have and
Charles,
I sure hope they don't start charging for software by headcount. Every time
I see a headline about a company cutting thousands of workers, invariably
they say that the stock went up. If software costs go down whenever you
have a headcut, that will give management added incentives to
fails to mention that fact, you're right
back where you were. They have the customer's ear and speak his language;
you don't.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Timothy Sipples
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007
On 18 Feb 2007 11:44:17 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>> much snipped
>
>I understand that customers dont want to become dependent on
>leased software that expires and shuts down during critical times.
>However, there must be some reasonable cut-off point when negotiations
>break-dow
Charles Mills writes:
>Hasn't even IBM gone to
>less and less of a "trust" model? Are not the restrictions on z/OS.e, for
>example, enforced by technology that is somewhat analogous to keys?
Re: z/OS.e, I'd say not. A customer has control over IEASYSxx, subject
(legally) to their license. ("LICE
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Eric N. Bielefeld
Sent: Sun 2/18/2007 9:54 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are there?)
This has been a very interesting discussion. A few of the vendors
From: Bruno Sugliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes Dave
and i agree with you .
(apart that if it doubles to a 5 figure number it is already half a five
figure number :-)) )
Hmm; the licensing cost isn't a 2.5 figure number . It's a 4 figure
number, which if doubled would become a 5 figure number. 4
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:17:48 +, Dave Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My product only costs a tiny fraction of the amounts you mentioned. But if I
>had to visit each customer site everytime a license came up for renewal, the
>price could easily double to a 5 figure number.
>
>IMO, any solution
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Rick Fochtman
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:20 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: License keys for ISV products(What alternatives are there?)
>
/sn
From: Bruno Sugliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Everytime a guy comes with a 300 000 dollars tag , we know we should be
able
to get it for 150 000.
Cut smf records , get them from me and bill me accordingly , i'll allow you
to come and see my systems .
My product only costs a tiny fraction of the amo
In a message dated 2/18/2007 12:32:37 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wonder what people would say if Microsoft was putting an expiring license
key inside W2k or Office in our professional PC's
Although everybody knows forbidden usage happens , keys are normal
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:54:53 -0600, Eric N. Bielefeld
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This has been a very interesting discussion. A few of the vendors have
>givin very good reasons for having keys. This comes at a time when I was
>givin the task to renew our Syncsort keys. I found that negotiating
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
